HB 76
Background and procedural information
House Bill 76, which is currently in committee, would amend the North Carolina Constitution to create an Independent Redistricting Committee. This committee would be responsible for redistricting after each decennial census. If this bill passes, it will go onto the ballot as an initiative.

Under the proposed legislation, are single-member districts a requirement or otherwise implied?
No. There is no explicit or implied requirement that single-member districts be used. The proposed legislation demands that one-person one-vote principles be adhered to, but does not require districts to be the same size.

Does the proposed legislation provide for Voting Rights Act compliance (e.g. can the commission use voter history information)?

Yes. Although the Voting Rights Act is not specifically mentioned, the proposed legislation allows demographic data to be used when necessary to comply with federal law.

Under the proposed legislation, how is the commission formed?

The proposed legislation would create an Independent Redistricting Committee with nine members. Two members, one from each major political party, would be appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Three members, no more than two from any political party, would be appointed by the Governor. The remaining four members are appointed, one each, by the following: the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Minority Leader for the House of Representatives, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, and the Minority Leader of the Senate.

Under the proposed legislation, are competitive districts favored?
Neutral.*

Under the proposed legislation, can members of the public submit plans?
No. The public has forty-five days after the plan is announced to comment on it and make suggestions. There is no official mechanism by which the public could submit plans, however.

Does the proposed legislation allow for mid-decade redistricting?
No. Redistricting is to be done only once after every decennial census.

*Note: A proposal may be neutral on whether or not to favor competitive districts for a number of reasons, including that such a requirement may be thought to conflict with other criteria, potentially create other legal issues, or is assumed to flow from the new process itself -- or it might merely not be a priority for the legislative sponsors. FairVote believes that some form of proportional voting is needed to ensure maximum competitiveness for each seat and to ensure meaningful choices for all voters.

 
November 3rd 2002
Politics, Incumbency Style
Newsday

Columnist Rosanna Perotti discusses proportional representation as a solution to monopoly politics.

November 3rd 2002
Get your election results here: 99.8% accurate
Houston Chronicle

FairVote's Steven Hill and Rob Richie describe that the election results can be predicted in US, because most districts tilt strongly toward one party.

November 2nd 2002
Why state has few real races for House
San Jose Mercury News

FairVote's Larry Sabato comments on the lack of competitive House seats in the 2002 election, noting that San Jose residents have a better chance of affecting the race by donating money to a candidate in another part of the country than voting.

October 30th 2002
More than ever, incumbents in driver's seat
USA Today

Despite the fact redistricting is suppose to boost competition, this article explores how drawing congressional district lines has rendered 90% of elections nearly uncontested, drawing examples from Illinois.

October 28th 2002
GOP House members snug in incumbency
Cincinnati Enquirer

Money, incumbency advantage, and redistricting have transformed the American political system into a non-competitive arena.

[ Previous ] [ Next ]